Free Radicals

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I dislike the word "patriarchy". Mostly because it seems like a huge exaggeration.

Then again, not being a citizen of the United States, maybe I can't notice all the blatant oppression of women going on every second of every day. Can some American citizen tell me how many woman-slaves the average guy has out there?

Valerie Solanas described herself as a radical feminist, but advocated the extreme feminist notion of eliminating men. I don't know if she used the term 'radical' this way because she was on the fringes and not entirely sound of mind, but as a loose group you can't expect everyone to use the same language or in the same way. Some feminists would openly reject being labelled one thing or another as it grossly simplifies and divides...

Given that I'm a feminist myself, I stopped using the term "Radical Feminist" a long time ago (I don't know if I ever did, actually). Instead, I just call it misandry.

Desert Punk:

hazabaza1:
So is The Escapist just going "hey guys we need more traffic, make stuff that's guaranteed to create arguments" to their content creators now?

To be fair, the authors of Crit Miss are always on a hair trigger when it comes to complaining about sexism stuff. Its their go to thing when they got nothin else I think.

No, that's Neon Gnesis Evangelion.

Feminism, Feminism, Sexism, Misogyny, Harassment, Misogyny, Feminism, Rape, Feminism, Sexualization, Objectification, Sexism, Feminism, Misogyny, Patriarchy.

Video Games.

jehk:
I'd say the patriarchy is much more of a subconscious thing.

I agree that link is totes radical.

The problem I have with Internet discussions about the patriarchy is because nobody seems to know what patriarchy ACTUALLY is. This is the textbook definition of patriarchy, which radical feminism is opposed to.

pa·tri·arch·y [pey-tree-ahr-kee]

noun, plural pa·tri·arch·ies.
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

And there you go. It's simply a society where males are the supreme authority. I don't see how that can, in any way, be something "subconscious." Now, looking at the number of male political leaders in the world versus female ones, I think it's safe to say the only way to describe most societies IS patriarchy. Even if we exclude places like northern Africa and the Middle East where the patriarchy is pretty much supported by the law and the dominant culture, in western countries men still hold the vast majority of both wealth and power. And while there may not be any laws keeping this in place, there are still many cultural barriers supported by tradition and certain societal stigmas that are keeping things from evening out as quickly as they should.

The other aspect of radical feminism is stopping traditional gender roles from being impressed on children and young women. Again, while today in western society most women aren't encouraged to stay in the kitchen all their lives, there are still some remnants of this in things we don't put much thought into. For example, children's toys. Ever notice boy's toys are more oriented toward building, creating, problem-solving, and dealing with conflict (Legos, hot wheels, toy construction sets, R/C cars, etc), and girl's toys are more oriented toward domestic tasks (baby dolls, dress-up dolls, kitchen sets, toy vacuums, etc). The question is, do kids like these toys because they want them, or are we giving them very subtle hints that these are the things they SHOULD like?

And more importantly, do these subtle hints affect children later in life when they are developing abstract and potentially professional interests? Are there fewer women interested in engineering because women inherently dislike such things, or are fewer women interested because they weren't exposed to it as much as they were other things when they were young?

So basically, do you think that males should reign supreme, and do you think that women belong in traditional gender roles? No? Then congratulations! You are officially a radical feminist and an anti-patriarch!

I always thought radical feminism is called radical because it wants to abolish gender roles completely, which it sees as basis of oppression (which is why radical feminists really dislike male trans). Then again, feminism as a whole is so badly defined that the term is mostly useless, so probably it's the same for radical feminism.

Also, of course stuff like the twitter tag "kill all men" seems rather radical to me, even if the people who use it say it is totally okay because either they don't really mean it or violence is okay because of oppression.

I want a Strawman Inc. shirt so I can walk around saying things like

ALL ATHEISTS MUST HATE THEIR LIVE

ALL FEMINISTS HATE MEN

ALL PEOPLE WHO EAT MEAT WANT ANIMALS TO SUFFER

ALL LIBERALS HATE AMERICA

...and so forth, and just point at my shirt if someone tries arguing with me.

Entitled:

Father Time:
So a radical feminist is anyone who believes in patriarchy? Ok fine, I don't like them too much either. I think that whole theory brings nothing of value to discussion since it's so easily used a vague cop-out/scapegoat. Often times I'll hear them say something like "that bias against men exists because of patriarchy, buy our feminist war bonds against the evil patriarchy if you want to help men".

Patriarchy is not a theory, it's the name of a social system.

Just like anarchy, or oligarchy, or monarchy.

Specifically, this one is greek for a system where the authority (arkhēs) is primarily held by males(patēr). That's it.

I thought it was a society where power is specifically handed down to men and only men, like those old monarchies where the throne would always go to one of the King's sons (if he had one).

Entitled:

No complex "theory", or "scapegoat", pretty much just the statement that the problem with gender issues is the focus on male authority.

That's the literal definition but not the one I've seen most feminists use (they even tell me they don't mean the literal definition). Like when they say patriarchy hurts men. You tell them that men get higher sentences for the same crimes as women and they say it's the patriarchy's fault.

Eqaultiy and fairness yes, everything else no.

I want a "Strawman Inc." shirt

I usually just call them internet feminists, because I've never run into one in the real world.In real life feminists are primarily concerned with equality and fairness, online the loudest ones are most concerned with who get's to be chairperson of the pity party.

At least that radical feminist is having a lot of fun. I'm sure if a guy was going to compete with her, she'd be a good sport..... hopefully?

OT: Feminists in general are just people with a set of beliefs like anybody else would. Sure, many would disagree on their viewpoints but as mentioned everyone's got something to say. If we stay civil and discuss in a manner that lacks hostility then I feel things would work out better. Just my 2 cents unless that's not the right term to use then forgive me lol.

Lilani:

pa·tri·arch·y [pey-tree-ahr-kee]

noun, plural pa·tri·arch·ies.
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

And there you go. It's simply a society where males are the supreme authority. I don't see how that can, in any way, be something "subconscious." Now, looking at the number of male political leaders in the world versus female ones, I think it's safe to say the only way to describe most societies IS patriarchy. Even if we exclude places like northern Africa and the Middle East where the patriarchy is pretty much supported by the law and the dominant culture, in western countries men still hold the vast majority of both wealth and power. And while there may not be any laws keeping this in place, there are still many cultural barriers supported by tradition and certain societal stigmas that are keeping things from evening out as quickly as they should.

Yes, a lot of countries are patriarchies. Yes, western countries were for the longest time patriarchies. Yes, western countries are still unequal in regards to genders (also gender is just one of many factors in regards to inequality), but they aren't patriarchies anymore. To give just one reason why western countries are not patriarchies: if they were patriarchal, single mothers wouldn't be allowed to make any decisions without their fathers, as in a patriarchy there would always be a male family member as head of the family.

But in my experience feminists seldom use the sociological definition of patriarchy you gave, as it isn't relevant anymore in todays western society. Instead they use a feminist definition along the lines of "patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women." (wikipedia), which is completely different from the definition you gave, where everyone expect for fathers and perhaps male heirs are oppressed.

I personally hate those Tubuler Feminists myself.

Now I want that guys shirt, I think it would be cool.

Father Time:

I thought it was a society where power is specifically handed down to men and only men, like those old monarchies where the throne would always go to one of the King's sons (if he had one).

I think that is Patrilineality that you are thinking of, that is about inheritance.

An -archy is more generally about the social hierarchy.

(And a -cracy is about the way the government and political system gets organized.)

Father Time:

That's the literal definition but not the one I've seen most feminists use (they even tell me they don't mean the literal definition). Like when they say patriarchy hurts men. You tell them that men get higher sentences for the same crimes as women and they say it's the patriarchy's fault.

Those that you hear are not the definition, but the added explanations about HOW they believe the patriarchy works.

If someone tells you that they believe the USA is heading towards a dictatorship, and then start a rant about conspiracies, the proper reply is not that you "don't believe that dictatorship is a thing". It is a given, that the specific conspiracies they have listed are not a fundamental part of the word "dictatorship", just of their specific usage of it.

And to answer your specific problem with patriarchy, I think what you are missing is that just because a society is "ruled by men", doesn't mean

A) that it is ruled by every single men, (as opposed to a handful of men ruling over most men and women)

B) that every single person benefits from being considered "in authority". Edward II of England was the Monarch in a Monarchy, yet I bet he would have rather chosen to be some obscure peasant, by the time he got a red hot poker inserted into his anus. Hitler might have been Führer in his own social system, but by the time the Soviets were coming for him, he would rather have been a jew in Treblinka, just getting liberated.

If you think that right now we are not living in a patriarchy, try to imagine the most patriarchal system you know. Medieval Europe, islamic Sharia law, whatever. You might notice, that even there, men can be harmed by the very same logic that places them at the top of society. Men are supposed to fight in wars, men are supposed to be chivalrious, men are supposed to be more legally accountable while women are like children under care...

So you could either conclude that there is no such thing as real patriarchy, (not even in the countries where women weren't allowed to own property, or legally defend themselves, or choose their husbands), or more rationally, that all patriarchy can benefit women and harm men on some smaller scales, even if by and large this is done by granting men more power than to women.

Do you guys remember when we spoke about video games on video games websites and forums? No? Okay then. I'm gonna go play some video games and maybe come back when you guys are ready to discuss video games again.

kailus13:
Does it really make a difference if you know what the person is talking about? Whather they call them radical or extreme, you know what they mean by the context in which it is used.

Yes but by redefining the words, like how she's doing in this comic strip, it lessens the opposing person's argument by redirecting it. She didn't actually make any real intelligent response to his comment, she simply turned it into a mockery of his point of view, by saying "you sound like my grandmother." It's a pretty common argument tactic. She's made him now look foolish and childish for simply stating that he has an issue with the ultra "zealot/radical/insane/whatever word you use to denote extreme behavior" by saying him calling them that is silly.

Nevermind that there ARE some people (of both genders and of any group) that take their particular activist stance WAY too far, it's just he's being silly and picturing feminists as The 90's Kid from Linkara, but with boobs instead. That's how it seems to me anyway.

VanQ:
Do you guys remember when we spoke about video games on video games websites and forums? No? Okay then. I'm gonna go play some video games and maybe come back when you guys are ready to discuss video games again.

Weird. I didn't notice you making a comment on Tuesday's strip (Pokemon), or the three preceding strips that were all about talking about videogames.

I just can't stand current day feminism in general.

Now it has just become a way to bitch about current inequalities, without actually suggesting how to fix them or making any effort to level the playing field. Moaning about the patriarchy who is doing all kinds of shit behind the background that even I a man am completely unaware of. Like for example giving rapists the right to visit their children. I always thought that was just an oversight from legislators in custody law, but no, the patriarchy specifically made it so apparently. It's also not important that we get equal rights, no women should be put ahead of the other sex in all issues as a form of "reparations" essentially trading places, when this movement is supposed to be about equal treatment for both sexes. It's also about calling people sexist and misogynist whenever they dare to question whatever a feminist says.

Example 1:

"I support the Dalai Lama in his quest to retake his homeland."

"You do know the Dalai Lama is part of a tyrannical cult of monks that for centuries lived in extravagant opulence and oppressed the Tibetan people right? I mean China is still an oppressive government, but at least they have fucking public education now. If you want to free Tibet fine, but don't hand it back to the Dalai Lama and his cult."

"You are just saying that because you are a misogynist pig, whenever a woman has an opinion about something or wants to do something you immediately twist it into something bad because you are scared of proactive women."

That's what your average feminist is nowadays. A twittering professional victim who likes to blame whenever she doesn't succeed on the Patriarchy.

If you want actual equality rather then this nouveau-feminism, just be a decent human being. Point out where inconsistencies between the sexes are apparent. Actually vote so as to fix broken laws for example. Start petitions or campaign for it. Do anything really to help get to a point where the sexes are treated equal, but don't become one of those people.

PS: If you are a feminist and you don't recognize yourself in this description, please just consider not being addressed. Sadly there is no distinction between the people with their head on straight and the people bitching about the patriarchy all day.

Grey Carter:

VanQ:
Do you guys remember when we spoke about video games on video games websites and forums? No? Okay then. I'm gonna go play some video games and maybe come back when you guys are ready to discuss video games again.

Weird. I didn't notice you making a comment on Tuesday's strip (Pokemon), or the three preceding strips that were all about talking about videogames.

Am I a user you would normally notice? I actually haven't come to the site in about a week due to work and uni bogging me down and the last strip of yours I remember reading was another Eva one. But I digress, I'm just sick of seeing the F word these days.

1. This strip is stupid; anyone who didn't eat paste as a child knows that the "radical" in this context doesn't mean "awesome" or "wildly cool".

2. Normal Feminism = mutual respect between men and women for one another, neither one belittling or degrading the other for their gender. Radical Feminism = finding everything about men offensive and insulting, going out of the way to infer a hidden chauvinist message in everything possible and in some cases demonizing the very existence of men.

3. If you didn't already know point #2...seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

Lilani:

jehk:
I'd say the patriarchy is much more of a subconscious thing.

I agree that link is totes radical.

The problem I have with Internet discussions about the patriarchy is because nobody seems to know what patriarchy ACTUALLY is. This is the textbook definition of patriarchy, which radical feminism is opposed to.

pa·tri·arch·y [pey-tree-ahr-kee]

noun, plural pa·tri·arch·ies.
1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.
2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

And there you go. It's simply a society where males are the supreme authority. I don't see how that can, in any way, be something "subconscious." Now, looking at the number of male political leaders in the world versus female ones, I think it's safe to say the only way to describe most societies IS patriarchy. Even if we exclude places like northern Africa and the Middle East where the patriarchy is pretty much supported by the law and the dominant culture, in western countries men still hold the vast majority of both wealth and power. And while there may not be any laws keeping this in place, there are still many cultural barriers supported by tradition and certain societal stigmas that are keeping things from evening out as quickly as they should.

Those two lines seem contradictory. It can't be subconscious, but is caused by things that aren't the focal awareness, in grained things like traditions and stigmas. The part of the consciousness that is not currently in focal awareness is the subconscious. You basically said it has to be done on purpose, but they aren't doing it on purpose.

Father Time:

MinionJoe:

Father Time:

Does feminism stand to gain anything by trying to redefine what a radical feminist is? I don't think so.

Do Muslims stand to gain anything by trying to redefine what radical Islam is?

I've known quite a few Muslims over the years. One guy was as devout in his religion as anyone I've ever met. Yet he was the first to condemn any violent act done in the name of Islam.

Would he benefit by having the radical elements of his religion redefined and distanced from his mainstream beliefs?

Violent Muslims are already classified as radicals. What's there to redefine?

MinionJoe:

But when you have a radical feminist calling for the castration of all pre-pubescent men, the feminist movement would certainly benefit by redefining that element as something else entirely.

Radical/Extreme is about the best you can do. You can't stop those people from calling themselves feminists.

Radical has a negative connotation so do you really want to use it to describe anyone who uses patriarchy ....

on second thought they should totally keep doing this. Also they should adopt the conspiracy theorist label while they're at it.

(yeah patriarchy doesn't mean a conspiracy, blah blah blah, it's an emotionally laden bullshit piece of rhetoric that brings up images of a conspiracy though so they should stick with that).

I thought radical feminists ARE conspiracy theorists, what with how they talk.

OT: So it's another one of THESE types of strips today. I wonder what brought up this topic? I remember when this comic made jokes about video games and things unique to them, and those were good days. Now it's just transparent audience baiting.

rolls eyes" I dont care what the official definition is. When I think of a feminist that I like its someone who doesnt havent to peg everything as sexist to justify her paranoid mentality. Like say when they tried to peg the last of us,bioshock infinite, borderlands 2(also racist btw lol) tomb raider, etc etc I could go on.

One thats not radical is one that shows reason typically labeled as a sex positive feminist would be where I align. The actual definition just sounds like basic feminism to me and the radical at the beginning just sounds like someone trying to shake off its previous negative connotations.

For the record if you have to preface.(ie: radical is not that radical) and just about everyone associated with this philosophy does that its probably safe to go ahead and take out the radical in the name. Itd be like calling me hair on head rbstewart when Im in fact bald?! lol

You guys should go ahead and tackle the arguement that says that it makes more sense to align yourself with the label of humanitarian. Im curious to see how you go after that one.

Also if you dont give the opposing argument respect.That thing you do when you give the opposing argument stuff like strawman tshirts or make them out to be smug hipsters(irony) while the other person is essentially the quintesential "just a reasonable human being". Than your using shame as a form of coercion and the opposing side no longer has any respect for you and ergo; no ear for what you have to say. If you guys want to actually reach people with your ideas on this strip(for all I know you dont really care which in case strawman away) your gonna have to do better than that. Both in your counter argument and in respect/view of the opposite opinion.

thaluikhain:
There's nothing inherently transphobic about radical feminism.

However, yes, in practice, very many of them do happen to be exceedingly transphobic. I must admit that I was swayed by their rhetoric about that for awhile before reading a wider range of feminist stuff.

So... radical feminism isn't transphobic, but very many of them [proponents of] are exceedingly transphobic?
0_o

So there are radical radical feminists within the radical feminist community, or moderate radical feminists, or?
The statement sounds to me like "MS13 isn't an inherently racist organization, but in practice, most of its members are extremely racist."

Lono Shrugged:
I don't really see how anyone could be offended by this comic...

I mean it is just a male writer using a strawman argument to make a spurious issue out of said strawman's semantic error of mixing up 2 definitions rooted in the same issue, and wheeling out a reference to a dated colloquial term that will register a humour response out of the demographic of readers, with a punchline so disconnected from the set-up as to make you wonder why he picked that paticular issue at all. Except of course, knowing hot button topics generate views...

Neeeeooooooo way anyone will get upset about this comic, no sir.

Sarcasm Level: Gregory House.

heres some quotes from the wiki article you linked describing radical feminism.

views on transexual people.

"Radical feminism has been accused of being transphobic, for example in 1979 Janice Raymond's book The Transsexual Empire described transsexuality as a "patriarchal myth".[39] Many radical feminists today still believe that transsexuality is oppressive to women, and genital reassignment surgery is a violation of human rights. Sheila Jeffreys for instance, describes 'transgender' surgeries as 'mutilation."

So now we either agree that this is a view that applies to that philosophy, or; we now have to contest the very page you were citing as proof that, "its not as radical as you think". This is considered a pretty extreme view by alot of people. I suppose you could also argue that there right about this if that were your view but that would be career suicide among other things.(like transphobic)

Echols and Willis have both written that radical feminism was, ultimately, dismissive of lesbian sexuality. On the one hand, if the central struggle was to take place within personal heterosexual relationships, as envisioned by the Redstockings, lesbians were marginalized. On the other, political lesbianism granted lesbians a vanguard role, but only if they would play down erotic desire.

These are criticisms mind you so yeah. but take note that the focus was on lesbianism. no males were ever given consideration even male homosexuals who were and are very oppressed to this day.

Ill say this though radical feminism(I really hate that term lol) was important in making womens equality a widespread idea through its use of CR groups.

Oh Christ it just hit me. I know why people are fighting in all these gender debates. We're arguing over how things are worded and misunderstandings on what certain words mean. Wow. I can't believe we did that.

Entitled:

Father Time:

I thought it was a society where power is specifically handed down to men and only men, like those old monarchies where the throne would always go to one of the King's sons (if he had one).

I think that is Patrilineality that you are thinking of, that is about inheritance.

An -archy is more generally about the social hierarchy.

(And a -cracy is about the way the government and political system gets organized.)

Father Time:

That's the literal definition but not the one I've seen most feminists use (they even tell me they don't mean the literal definition). Like when they say patriarchy hurts men. You tell them that men get higher sentences for the same crimes as women and they say it's the patriarchy's fault.

Those that you hear are not the definition, but the added explanations about HOW they believe the patriarchy works.

If someone tells you that they believe the USA is heading towards a dictatorship, and then start a rant about conspiracies, the proper reply is not that you "don't believe that dictatorship is a thing". It is a given, that the specific conspiracies they have listed are not a fundamental part of the word "dictatorship", just of their specific usage of it.

Did I say patriarchies aren't actual things? If I did I should've said we aren't living in one. Also that the alternate feminist definition is very vague.

Father Time:

If you think that right now we are not living in a patriarchy, try to imagine the most patriarchal system you know. Medieval Europe, islamic Sharia law, whatever. You might notice, that even there, men can be harmed by the very same logic that places them at the top of society. Men are supposed to fight in wars, men are supposed to be chivalrious, men are supposed to be more legally accountable while women are like children under care...

I didn't mean 'men are harmed therefore no patriarchy' I meant 'certain feminist blame everything on the alleged patriarchy' and alleged that they do this so that can say they're the solution to mens' problems. But nevertheless a male only draft doesn't prove a patriarchy.

erttheking:
Oh Christ it just hit me. I know why people are fighting in all these gender debates. We're arguing over how things are worded and misunderstandings on what certain words mean.

Well, if people wouldn't do that, what would they argue about?

"-Women deserve equal pay.
-Okay.
-You agree with that?
-Yeah. I mean, I'm not hitler, so of course I do.
-Oh, okay then.
[silence...]"

My problem has actually taken me a lot of research to define. And it ended with me finding out that I don't really have a problem with feminism. What I have is a problem with a handful of obnoxious women on the internet who have done almost no research into the subject and have no idea what feminism is really about, how it works or what it's history is, but who are nonetheless are happy to use it as an excuse to be really nasty to other people and justify their personal power fantasy of being able to hurt anyone who says something that might possibly be construed to be an insult.

They do exist, but I've found that they're somewhat less prevalent than some media pundits would have you believe. They just happen to have the loudest voice on the internet. Idiots always seem to have the loudest voice on the internet.

Radical
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

Political radicalism

The term political radicalism denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways

Extremist
a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

SO yeah, no. They're pretty much interchangeable unless you've decided to randomly change their meaning to be something completely different from what it is in standard English. Which I fully expect you have, just to be petty little assholes about this.

How do english?

Zachary Amaranth:

hazabaza1:
So is The Escapist just going "hey guys we need more traffic, make stuff that's guaranteed to create arguments" to their content creators now?

Who else is doing this? I mean, the closest I can come in the shows I watch on here is Jim Sterling, and he's always been a bit of an iconoclast.

Then again, most of the rest of the shows I watch involve LRR, and they're too Canadian to offend anyone.

Unless you hate Canadia. In which case, they're sorry.

Like you said, Jim. Then there's Yahtzee with the whole pre-op transsexual thing, now changed into a censorship thing 'cos he changed the joke. Recently there was the best boobs gallery of the day, and I could've sworn Bob did a thing about the rape stuff in Kick-Ass 2 but I can't find it any more so maybe I imagined it. And then there's the Target advertising kerfuffle going on in Off-Topic.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here